DOCSLIB.ORG

Perioperative Management of Complex Hepatectomy for Colorectal Liver Metastases: the Alliance Between the Surgeon and the Anesthetist

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Perioperative Management of Complex Hepatectomy for Colorectal Liver Metastases: the Alliance Between the Surgeon and the Anesthetist cancers Review Perioperative Management of Complex Hepatectomy for Colorectal Liver Metastases: The Alliance between the Surgeon and the Anesthetist Enrico Giustiniano 1,*, Fulvio Nisi 1,*, Laura Rocchi 1, Paola C. Zito 1, Nadia Ruggieri 1, Matteo M. Cimino 2, Guido Torzilli 2,3 and Maurizio Cecconi 1,3 1 Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Units, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Milan, Italy; [email protected] (L.R.); [email protected] (P.C.Z.); [email protected] (N.R.); [email protected] (M.C.) 2 Hepato-Biliary & Pancreatic Surgery Unit, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Milan, Italy; [email protected] (M.M.C.); [email protected] (G.T.) 3 Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, 20090 Milan, Italy * Correspondence: [email protected] (E.G.); [email protected] (F.N.); Tel.: +39-02-8224-7459 (E.G.); +39-02-8224-4115 (F.N.); Fax: +39-02-8224-4190 (E.G. & F.N.) Simple Summary: Major high-risk surgery (HRS) exposes patients to potential perioperative adverse events. Hepatic resection of colorectal metastases can surely be included into the HRS class of operations. Limiting such risks is the main target of the perioperative medicine. In this context the Citation: Giustiniano, E.; Nisi, F.; collaboration between the anesthetist and the surgeon and the sharing of management protocols is Rocchi, L.; Zito, P.C.; Ruggieri, N.; of utmost importance and represents the key issue for a successful outcome. In our institution, we Cimino, M.M.; Torzilli, G.; Cecconi, M. Perioperative Management of have been adopting consolidated protocols for patients undergoing this type of surgery for decades; Complex Hepatectomy for Colorectal this made our mixed team (surgeons and anesthetists) capable of achieving a safe outcome for the Liver Metastases: The Alliance majority of our surgical population. In this narrative review, we report the most recent state of the art between the Surgeon and the of perioperative management of hepatic resection of colorectal metastases along with our experience Anesthetist. Cancers 2021, 13, 2203. in this field, trying to point out the main issues. https://doi.org/10.3390/ cancers13092203 Abstract: Hepatic resection has been widely accepted as the first choice for the treatment of colorectal metastases. Liver surgery has been recognized as a major abdominal procedure; it exposes patients Academic Editors: Giovanni Mauri, to a high risk of perioperative adverse events. Decision sharing and the multimodal approach to the Lorenzo Monfardini, patients’ management are the two key items for a safe outcome, even in such a high-risk surgery. This Matteo Donadon and Guido Torzilli review aims at addressing the main perioperative issues (preoperative evaluation; general anesthesia and intraoperative fluid management and hemodynamic monitoring; intraoperative metabolism; Received: 8 March 2021 administration policy for blood-derivative products; postoperative pain control; postoperative Accepted: 30 April 2021 Published: 3 May 2021 complications), in particular, from the anesthetist’s point of view; however, only an alliance with the surgery team may be successful in case of adverse events to accomplish a good final outcome. Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in Keywords: liver surgery; colorectal; hepatic resection; perioperative care published maps and institutional affil- iations. 1. Introduction Hepatic resection has been widely accepted as the first choice for the treatment of Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. colorectal metastases [1]. Colorectal cancer often causes metastases to the liver (14–70% of Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. patients), of which modern surgery combined with neo-adjuvant chemotherapy permits This article is an open access article the resection both by open and laparoscopic surgery [2]. Hepatic surgery is considered a distributed under the terms and major surgery (MS); as such, it exposes patients to the risk of postoperative complications. conditions of the Creative Commons Furthermore, given the increasing number of subjects who undergo high-risk surgery Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// in old age along with age-related comorbidities, the risk of postoperative complications creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ further increases. 4.0/). Cancers 2021, 13, 2203. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13092203 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/cancers Cancers 2021, 13, 2203 2 of 19 Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programs ameliorated the perioperative course of major abdominal surgery. In particular, for digestive tract surgery, specific guidelines became available in the past decade (see www.erassociety.org, (Accessed on 2 February 2021) [3,4]. Modern surgery cannot ignore the need in a multimodal approach to prepare patients to high-risk surgery. The best way to ensure a safe outcome is to start making use of each specialist doctor who manages each aspect according to specific competences before the operation and continue this practice in the postoperative period. Our review tried to take stock of the anesthetic aspects of hepatic resection without forgetting the potential surgical adverse events, focusing on the closest perioperative period as follows: (1) preoperative evaluation and examinations; (2) general anesthesia and intraoperative fluid management and hemodynamic monitoring; (3) intraoperative alterations of metabolism and their treatment; (4) administration of blood-derivative products; (5) postoperative pain control; (6) postoperative complications. 2. Preoperative Considerations Preoperative assessment was adapted to individual patients and types of surgical resection. Young patients (<40 years) without underlying liver disease could undergo significant liver resection having the same preoperative work out of any major intra- abdominal operation. Conversely, patients with hepatic disease have an increased risk of intra- and postoperative complications and require an in-depth preoperative assessment. During the past decades, the liver surgery-associated mortality has reduced to less than 2% in referral centers, but the rate of postoperative adverse events is still high (20–50%)[5–7]. To quantify the operation-related risk, many score systems have been used. Despite the ASA (American Society of Anesthesiology physical status classification system) score being a simple tool adopted all over the world to evaluate patients preop- eratively, it does not take into account the type of operation the patient undergoes. In 2014, the European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Anesthesiology (ESC/ESA) guidelines on non-cardiac surgery recommended a healthy lifestyle and the correction of unstable clinical conditions to make patients arrive to the surgical theater with a sufficient functional capacity [8,9]. The DASI (Duke Activity Status Index) should be a reliable system of evaluating and predicting the postoperative outcome, in particular, adverse cardiac events [10]. Finally, the surgical Apgar score (SAS), even though it is not so widely used, could be a complementary reliable and simple system for estimating the risk of a poor postoperative outcome [11]. At any rate, the preoperative period should ameliorate the starting clinical conditions of patients, aiming at better results of the perioperative period. The ERAS Society recently released guidelines for fast-track management of patients undergoing liver surgery. The recommendations for the perioperative management of patients could be summarized as described below. (1) Recommended preoperative fasting of 6 h for solids and 2 h for liquids. Carbohydrate supplies may be used the evening before surgery and at least 2 h before anesthesia induction. (2) Short-acting anxiolytic drugs should be preferred over the long-acting ones to facilitate regional anesthesia prior to the surgery. (3) Administration of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin should start 2–12 h before the surgery aiming at reducing the risk of thromboembolism. (4) Minimally invasive procedures should be preferred where possible. (5) Maintenance of intraoperative normothermia. (6) Early oral intake at the first postoperative day and early mobilization (as soon as possible). (7) Routine epidural analgesia (EA) cannot be recom- mended for open liver surgery for ERAS patients. Wound infusion catheter or intrathecal opiates can be good alternatives combined with multimodal analgesia. (8) Prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). (9) Fluid management includes the central venous pressure (CVP) guide with a target < 5 cm H2O. (10) Steroids (methylprednisolone) may be used before hepatectomy in normal liver parenchyma since it decreases liver injury Cancers 2021, 13, 2203 3 of 19 and intraoperative stress without increasing the risk of complications. (11) Glycaemia control [4]. Cardiac function evaluation should assess the ability of the system to cope with the hemodynamic challenge of vascular exclusion during liver resection. Exercise or stress echocardiography may be useful to assess the contractile reserve. Relevant anamnestic data are those regarding previous neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, which may reduce functional cardiac reserve, and/or conditions causing elevation of central venous pressure (CVP) that significantly increase the risk of intraoperative bleeding [1]. Pulmonary evaluation focuses on detecting impaired pulmonary gas exchange or inadequate ventilatory reserve. Pulmonary
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Janež J. Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Tube Dislocation 2 Days After Insertion with Copyright© Janež J
    1. Medical Journal of Clinical Trials & Case Studies ISSN: 2578-4838 Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Tube Dislocation 2 Days after Insertion with Consequent Peritonitis Janež J* Case Report Department of Abdominal Surgery, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Slovenia Volume 2 Issue 3 Received Date: April 22, 2018 *Corresponding author: Jurij Janež, Department of Abdominal Surgery, University Published Date: May 16, 2018 Medical Centre Ljubljana, Zaloška Cesta 7, 1525 Ljubljana, Slovenia, Tel: +38651315815; DOI: 10.23880/mjccs-16000151 Email: [email protected] Abstract Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy is a procedure that involves an endoscopic guided insertion of gastrostomy tube for purposes of enteral feeding. It is usually performed in patients after brain stroke or patients with malignant disease of throat that are unable of swallowing. In some cases, the gastrosotmy tube can become dislocated, allowing the gastric content to escape into the abdominal cavity, causing intra-abdominal abscess or peritonitis. This paper presented a case of a-80-year old male patient, who needed emergency operation due to displaced gastrostomy tube 2 days after insertion. Keywords: Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy; Tube Displacement; Emergency Surgery; Haemorrhage; Jejunostomy Abbreviations: PEG: Percutaneous Endoscopic [2]. In addition, patients who have trauma, cancer, or Gastrostomy; CT: Computed Tomography. recent surgery of the upper gastrointestinal tract the respiratory tract may require this procedure to maintain Introduction nutritional intake. Gut decompression may be needed in patients who have abdominal malignancies causing Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is a gastric outlet or small-bowel obstruction or ileus [3]. This procedure often needed in patients after brain stroke or paper presented a case of an 80-year-old male patient, with throat cancer that are unable of normal enteral who needed emergency operation 2 days after PEG feeding.
    [Show full text]
  • About Liver Resection
    ABOUT LIVER RESECTION Surgical removal of part of the liver A guide for patients and relatives This booklet has been written to provide information about the operation called a liver resection. This is a major operation and involves removal of a part of the liver. Information about the benefits and risks will help you make an informed decision about the operation. It is important to remember that each person is different. This booklet cannot replace the professional advice and expertise of a doctor who is familiar with your condition. If you have questions that this booklet does not cover, please discuss them with your surgeon or cancer nurse specialist. page 2 What is the liver? The liver is a large organ which lies on the right side of the upper abdomen, under the rib cage. It has many functions related to body metabolism (chemical processes within the body) and is very important to health. One of its functions is to produce yellow-green fluid called bile. Bile flows down a tube called the bile duct to the intestine, where it mixes with food and helps digestion. The gall bladder is a small sac attached to the side of the bile duct. The gall bladder stores excess bile and pushes it down the bile duct in to the intestine, ready for when it is needed for digestion. The liver has right and left lobes (sections). An artery (hepatic artery) and a vein (portal vein) carry blood to the liver. Blood from the liver flows through the hepatic veins back to the heart.
    [Show full text]
  • Laparoscopic Totally Extraperitoneal Inguinal Hernia Repair: Lessons Learned from 3,100 Hernia Repairs Over 15 Years
    Surg Endosc (2009) 23:482–486 DOI 10.1007/s00464-008-0118-3 Laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: lessons learned from 3,100 hernia repairs over 15 years Jean-Louis Dulucq Æ Pascal Wintringer Æ Ahmad Mahajna Received: 30 November 2007 / Accepted: 14 July 2008 / Published online: 23 September 2008 Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008 Abstract Mean operative time was 17 min in unilateral hernia and Background Two revolutions in inguinal hernia repair 24 min in bilateral hernia. There were 36 hernias (1.2%) surgery have occurred during the last two decades. The first that required conversion: 12 hernias were converted to was the introduction of tension-free hernia repair by open anterior Liechtenstein and 24 to laparoscopic TAPP Liechtenstein in 1989 and the second was the application of technique. The incidence of intraoperative complications laparoscopic surgery to the treatment of inguinal hernia in was low. Most of the patients were discharged at the sec- the early 1990s. The purposes of this study were to assess ond day of the surgery. The overall postoperative morbidity the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic totally extra- rate was 2.2%. The incidence of recurrence rate was peritoneal (TEP) repair and to discuss the technical changes 0.35%. The recurrence rate for the first 200 repairs was that we faced on the basis of our accumulative experience. 2.5%, but it decreased to 0.47% for the subsequent 1,254 Methods Patients who underwent an elective inguinal hernia repairs hernia repair at the Department of Abdominal Surgery at Conclusion According to our experience, in the hands of the Institute of Laparoscopic Surgery (ILS), Bordeaux, experienced laparoscopic surgeons, laparoscopic hernia between June 1990 and May 2005 were enrolled retro- repair seems to be the favored approach for most types of spectively in this study.
    [Show full text]
  • A Rare Complication of Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) and Its Successful Management
    Case Report Published: 23 Jun, 2020 Journal of Otolaryngology Forecast Non-Necrotizing Abdominal Wall Fasciitis: A Rare Complication of Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) and Its Successful Management Ah-See KL, Nath A, Gomati A, Shakeel M* and Ah-See KW Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZN, Scotland, United Kingdom Abstract Background: We report a case of non-necrotizing abdominal wall fasciitis as a post-operative complication of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion. Main Observations: A 57 year old man undergoing chemo-radiotherapy for head and neck cancer required a PEG tube insertion. The procedure was uneventful but he developed this complication associated with tube displacement into the anterior abdominal wall. The patient required multiple theatre visits for wound debridement, stayed in the intensive care unit but made a good recovery. Conclusion: All clinicians need to aware of possible gastrosotmy tube displacement, development of this life-threatening complication and be familiar with the appropriate management options. Keywords: Head and neck cancer; Chemoradiotherapy; PEG; Fasciitis; Postoperative complications Introduction Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) is a commonly performed procedure in patients with upper aerodigestive tract malignancies as well as in a range of other swallowing disorders. This OPEN ACCESS is generally regarded as a safe intervention to enable long-term enteral feeding. Procedure related mortality is reported at around 1% [1,2] and incidence of life threatening complications is low. The * Correspondence: procedure is simple and quick to complete [3]. Muhammad Shakeel, Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Necrotizing fasciitis is one of the most severe complications of abdominal surgery but is rare Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, in association with PEG tube insertion [4,5].
    [Show full text]
  • Liver Resections Combined with Closure of Loop Ileostomies: a Retrospective Analysis
    Hindawi Publishing Corporation HPB Surgery Volume 2008, Article ID 501397, 5 pages doi:10.1155/2008/501397 Research Article Liver Resections Combined with Closure of Loop Ileostomies: A Retrospective Analysis Jeffrey T. Lordan, Angela T. Riga, and Nariman D. Karanjia Regional Hepato-Pancreatico-Biliary Unit for Surrey and Sussex, The Royal Surrey County Hospital, Egerton Road, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XX, UK Correspondence should be addressed to Jeffrey T. Lordan, dr [email protected] Received 6 August 2008; Accepted 30 October 2008 Recommended by Olivier Farges Background. The management of patients with colorectal liver metastases and loop ileostomies remains controversial. This study was performed to assess the outcome of combined liver resection and loop ileostomy closure. Methods. Analysis of prospectively collected perioperative data, including morbidity and mortality, of 283 consecutive hepatectomies for colorectal liver metastases was undertaken. Consecutive liver resections were performed from 1996 to 2006 in one centre by a single surgeon (NDK). Fourteen of these patients had combined liver resection and ileostomy closure. Case-matched analysis was undertaken. Results.Six(2.2%) patients died in the hepatectomy only group and none died in the combined group. There was no difference in operative blood loss between the two groups (0.09). Perioperative morbidity was 36% in the combined group and 23% in the hepatectomy alone group (P = 0.33). Mean hospital stay was 14 days in the combined group and 11 days in the hepatectomy only group (P = 0.046). Case-matched analysis showed a significant increase in hospital stay (P = 0.03) and complications (P = 0.049) in the combined group.
    [Show full text]
  • 793 H. Chen (Ed.), Illustrative Handbook of General Surgery, DOI
    Index A anesthetization , 763 Abdominoperineal resection incision , 763, 764 (APR) informed consent , 762 anesthesia , 432–433 packing abscess cavity , indications , 430–431 764, 765 patient positioning , 432 potential risks, disclosure post-operative care , 446 of , 762 pre-operative imaging and protective equipment , 762 procedures , 431–432 skin preparation , 763 procedure A C C . See Adrenocortical cancer anococcygeal ligament , (ACC) 441, 442 Achalasia . See Esophageal anterior dissection plane , achalasia 442, 444 Adjustable gastric banding elliptical incision , 441 (AGB) , 237, 244–245 perineal incision , 442, 445 Adrenalectomy robotic , 445–446 indications for , 62 Abscess drainage laparoscopic (see anesthesia , 761–762 (Laparoscopic antibiotic therapy , 759 adrenalectomy) ) complications , 766 open (see (Open indications , 760 adrenalectomy) ) patient positioning , 761 Adrenal incidentaloma , 63 post-procedure Adrenocortical cancer (ACC) instructions , 766 laparoscopic adrenalectomy pre-procedure evaluation , (see (Laparoscopic 760–761 adrenalectomy) ) procedure open adrenalectomy (see abscess cavity, loculations (Open of , 764, 765 adrenalectomy) ) H. Chen (ed.), Illustrative Handbook of General Surgery, 793 DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-24557-7, © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 794 Index A G B . See Adjustable gastric Antirefl ux procedure (ARP) , 194 banding (AGB) Dor fundoplication Aldosterone producing advantages of , 200 adenoma , 71 completion of , 201–202 American College of creation of , 200–201 Radiologists
    [Show full text]
  • The Prevalence and Impact of Overlapping Rome IV-Diagnosed
    see related editorial on page x The Prevalence and Impact of Overlapping Rome IV-Diagnosed Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders on Somatization, Quality of Life, and Healthcare Utilization: A Cross-Sectional General Population Study in Three Countries Imran Aziz , MBChB, MD 1 , Olafur S. Palsson , PsyD 2 , Hans Törnblom , MD, PhD 1 , Ami D. Sperber , MD, MSPH3 , William E. Whitehead , PhD 2 and Magnus Simrén , MD, PhD 1 , 2 OBJECTIVES: The population prevalence of Rome IV-diagnosed functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) and their cumulative effect on health impairment is unknown. METHODS: An internet-based cross-sectional health survey was completed by 5,931 of 6,300 general population adults from three English-speaking countries (2100 each from USA, Canada, and UK). Quota-based sampling was used to generate demographically balanced and population representative samples with regards to age, sex, and education level. The survey enquired for demographics, medication, surgical history, somatization, quality of life (QOL), doctor-diagnosed organic GI disease, and criteria for the Rome IV FGIDs. Comparisons were made between those with Rome IV-diagnosed FGIDs against non-GI (healthy) and organic GI disease controls. RESULTS: The number of subjects having symptoms compatible with a FGID was 2,083 (35%) compared with 3,421 (57.7%) non-GI and 427 (7.2%) organic GI disease controls. The most frequently met diagnostic criteria for FGIDs was bowel disorders ( n =1,665, 28.1%), followed by gastroduodenal ( n =627, 10.6%), anorectal ( n =440, 7.4%), esophageal ( n =414, 7%), and gallbladder disorders ( n =10, 0.2%). On average, the 2,083 individuals who met FGID criteria qualifi ed for 1.5 FGID diagnoses, and 742 of them (36%) qualifi ed for FGID diagnoses in more than one anatomic region.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Aspects of Orthotopic Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma
    Technical Aspects of Orthotopic Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma a a,b, Lung-Yi Lee, MD , David P. Foley, MD * KEYWORDS Liver transplantation Surgery Hepatocellular carcinoma Piggyback technique Portal vein thrombosis KEY POINTS In the majority of cases, patients with cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who undergo liver transplantation are transplanted based on their higher Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) exception score and not their physiologic MELD score; this usually results in fewer physiologic derangements during liver transplantation. Patients who have previously undergone locoregional therapy or liver resection for HCC can develop significant perihepatic adhesions that increase the complexity of the hepa- tectomy during transplant. Implantation strategy of the inferior vena cava (IVC) during liver transplant may need to be modified based on location of previously treated HCC. Patients who undergo transarterial chemoembolization for pretransplant HCC therapy may have higher rates of hepatic artery thrombosis after liver transplant; therefore, aorto- hepatic bypass grafting with donor iliac artery may be required for arterial in flow to the liver allograft. Patients with portal vein (PV) thrombosis with a bland thrombus and a patent superior mesenteric vein (SMV) can undergo successful liver transplant through either PV throm- bectomy and standard end-to-end PV-PV anastomosis, or the use of SMV-PV bypass graft with donor iliac vein. a Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Clinical Sciences Center, H4/766, 600 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI 53792-3284, USA; b Veterans Administration Surgical Services, William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, 2500 Overlook Terrace, Madison, WI 53705, USA * Corresponding author.
    [Show full text]
  • Minimally Invasive Abdominal Surgery: LAPAROSCOPY
    Minimally Invasive Abdominal Surgery: LAPAROSCOPY LAPAROSCOPY GENERAL: Surgical techniques easier on horses Laparoscopic surgery is most commonly performed procedures involve ovariectomy, cryptorchid castration, nephrosplenic space closure and castration without testicule removal. A laparoscope is a specialized camera that allows the veterinary surgeons to examine the inside of the abdomen (belly). The laparoscope is attached to a video camera, which displays the image on a monitor. Unlike traditional abdominal surgery techniques, which require large openings to allow the surgeon’s hands to enter the abdomen, laparoscopic surgery is performed through very small incisions. Specialized long handled surgical instruments are passed through separate cannulas (tubular ports) into the abdomen. The surgeon uses these instruments while watching the procedure on the television screen, dissecting, cutting, suturing and cauterizing. During most laparoscopic procedures, the abdomen is kept distended, or filled, with carbon dioxide (“insufflation”) to allow visualization of the organs. Some procedures are performed using a combination of laparoscopy and traditional surgeries, known as “hand-assisted laparoscopy”. The excellent view provided by the laparoscope allows surgeons to see up close what their hands and instruments are doing within the abdomen. The laparoscope also provides direct magnified visualization of the surgery site. Therefore, surgeries can be performed in areas that cannot be seen with traditional surgical approaches. Also, surgical sites can be critically evaluated for control of bleeding (hemostasis) and placement of sutures or other implants. Many laparoscopic procedures are performed with the horse standing under sedation and local anesthetic, reducing the inherent risks associated with general anesthesia and recovery. Laparoscopy is a less invasive procedure, requiring three or four 1-cm incisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Icd-9-Cm (2010)
    ICD-9-CM (2010) PROCEDURE CODE LONG DESCRIPTION SHORT DESCRIPTION 0001 Therapeutic ultrasound of vessels of head and neck Ther ult head & neck ves 0002 Therapeutic ultrasound of heart Ther ultrasound of heart 0003 Therapeutic ultrasound of peripheral vascular vessels Ther ult peripheral ves 0009 Other therapeutic ultrasound Other therapeutic ultsnd 0010 Implantation of chemotherapeutic agent Implant chemothera agent 0011 Infusion of drotrecogin alfa (activated) Infus drotrecogin alfa 0012 Administration of inhaled nitric oxide Adm inhal nitric oxide 0013 Injection or infusion of nesiritide Inject/infus nesiritide 0014 Injection or infusion of oxazolidinone class of antibiotics Injection oxazolidinone 0015 High-dose infusion interleukin-2 [IL-2] High-dose infusion IL-2 0016 Pressurized treatment of venous bypass graft [conduit] with pharmaceutical substance Pressurized treat graft 0017 Infusion of vasopressor agent Infusion of vasopressor 0018 Infusion of immunosuppressive antibody therapy Infus immunosup antibody 0019 Disruption of blood brain barrier via infusion [BBBD] BBBD via infusion 0021 Intravascular imaging of extracranial cerebral vessels IVUS extracran cereb ves 0022 Intravascular imaging of intrathoracic vessels IVUS intrathoracic ves 0023 Intravascular imaging of peripheral vessels IVUS peripheral vessels 0024 Intravascular imaging of coronary vessels IVUS coronary vessels 0025 Intravascular imaging of renal vessels IVUS renal vessels 0028 Intravascular imaging, other specified vessel(s) Intravascul imaging NEC 0029 Intravascular
    [Show full text]
  • Contemporary Perioperative Anesthetic Management of Hepatic Resection
    Advances in Anesthesia 34 (2016) 85–103 ADVANCES IN ANESTHESIA Contemporary Perioperative Anesthetic Management of Hepatic Resection Jonathan A. Wilks, MD, Shannon Hancher-Hodges, MD, Vijaya N.R. Gottumukkala, MD* Department of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400-Unit 409, Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030, USA Keywords Liver resection anesthesia Low CVP anesthesia Liver ablation anesthesia Laparoscopic liver surgery Enhanced recovery Key points Close communication between the surgical and anesthesia teams is a key factor to improve outcomes in liver resections. Anesthetic techniques aimed at maintaining low hydrostatic pressures in the inferior vena cava can aid in reducing intraoperative blood loss during paren- chymal transection. Surgical methods of vascular control to reduce blood loss have hemodynamic consequences that warrant careful preoperative consideration of the anesthesiologist. Expanding treatment armamentariums with minimally invasive surgery and ablative therapies have important implications to anesthesia delivery for these new modalities. INTRODUCTION Providing anesthesia care for patients undergoing hepatic resection has changed considerably in the past 20 years. Close communication between the surgical and anesthesia teams is a key factor to improve outcomes in these Disclosure: None of the authors has a relationship with a commercial company that has a direct financial in- terest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this article or with a company making a competing product. *Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aan.2016.07.006 0737-6146/16/ª 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Downloaded from ClinicalKey.com at University of New Mexico November 06, 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Dorsal Approach with Glissonian Approach for Laparoscopic Right
    Wang et al. BMC Gastroenterol (2021) 21:138 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-021-01726-4 TECHNICAL ADVANCE Open Access Dorsal approach with Glissonian approach for laparoscopic right anatomic liver resections Shaohe Wang1,2, Yang Yue1, Wenjie Zhang1, Qiaoyu Liu1, Beicheng Sun1, Xitai Sun1 and Decai Yu1* Abstract Background: Laparoscopic anatomic hepatectomy (LAH) has gradually become a routine surgical procedure. How- ever, how to expose the whole hepatic vein and avoid the hepatic vein laceration is still a challenge because of the caudate lobe, particularly in right hepatectomy. We adopted a dorsal approach combined with Glissionian appraoch to perform laparoscopic right anatomic hepatectomy (LRAH). Methods: Twenty patients who underwent LRAH from January 2017 to November 2018 were retrospectively ana- lysed. Of these patients, seven patients underwent laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy (LRH group), seven patients who underwent laparoscopic right posterior hepatectomy (LRPH group), and six patients who underwent laparo- scopic hepatectomy for segment 7 (LS7 group). The paracaval portion of caudate lobe could be transected frstly through dorsal approach and the corresponding major hepatic vein could be exposed from its root to the periph- eral branches safely. Due to exposure along the major hepatic vein trunk, the remaining liver parenchyma could be quickly transected from dorsal to cranial side. Results: The mean age of the patients was 53.8 years and the male: female ratio was 8:12. The median operation time was 306.0 58.2 min and the mean estimated volume of blood loss was 412.5 255.4 mL. The mean duration of postoperative± hospital stay was 10.2 days.
    [Show full text]